[HOLD for payment 2024-06-28] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-20] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-18] [$250] Split scan- Error message only changes after clicking Split expense button for the second time

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 1.4.68-0
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from TestRail:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Slack conversation:

Action Performed:

1. Go to staging.new.expensify.com
2. Go to workspace chat.
3. Go to + > Split expense.
4. Create a scan split expense with an invaid receipt.
5. Wait for the scanning to fail.
6. When the scanning fails, click on the split preview.
7. Click Split expense.
8. Click Split expense again.

Expected Result:

When clicking Split expense for the first time, the error message should turn to "Transaction is missing fields".

Actual Result:

When clicking Split expense for the first time, the error message remains the same.
Only when clicking on the same button for the second time, the error message turns to "Transaction is missing fields".

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Which of our officially supported platforms is this issue occurring on?

• Android: Native
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: Native
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• MacOS: Desktop

Screenshots/Videos

Add any screenshot/video evidence

Bug6466572_1714482268861.20240430_205940.1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~012c836450a7395578
• Upwork Job ID: 1787821258983333888
• Last Price Increase: 2024-05-07

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @miljakljajic

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @miljakljajic (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[m-natarajan]

@miljakljajic FYI I haven't added the External label as I wasn't 100% sure about this issue. Please take a look and add the label if you agree it's a bug and can be handled by external contributors.

[m-natarajan]

We think this bug might be related to #vip-split

[melvin-bot]

@miljakljajic Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~012c836450a7395578

[miljakljajic]

Updated

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @rushatgabhane (External)

[nkdengineer]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

When clicking Split expense for the first time, the error message remains the same.
Only when clicking on the same button for the second time, the error message turns to "Transaction is missing fields".

What is the root cause of that problem?

In here, we will early return if there's a formError. In the case where the receipt scanning failed, the formError will indicate that, so when pressing Split expense, it will not show the Transaction is missing fields error here. Only in the second time when the formError was already cleared, it will show Transaction is missing fields error.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Move the error setting logic here to here

if (iouType !== CONST.IOU.TYPE.PAY) {
    ... check and set error
}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

[rushatgabhane]

App/src/components/MoneyRequestConfirmationList.tsx

Line 675 in 192bb56

} else {

I don't know why we're using else here. Seems like a straightfoward fix to me.

C+ reviewed 🎀 👀 🎀 @nkdengineer's proposal

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @aldo-expensify, see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/7972 for more details.

[melvin-bot]

@miljakljajic @rushatgabhane @aldo-expensify this issue was created 2 weeks ago. Are we close to approving a proposal? If not, what's blocking us from getting this issue assigned? Don't hesitate to create a thread in #expensify-open-source to align faster in real time. Thanks!

[melvin-bot]

@miljakljajic, @rushatgabhane, @aldo-expensify Huh... This is 4 days overdue. Who can take care of this?

[miljakljajic]

still reviewing

[miljakljajic]

@rushatgabhane are you happy with the solution?

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.81-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Error message only changes after clicking Split expense button for the second time #42450

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-18. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@rushatgabhane] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@rushatgabhane] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@rushatgabhane] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@rushatgabhane] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@rushatgabhane] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@miljakljajic] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.82-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: Error message only changes after clicking Split expense button for the second time #42450

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-20. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@rushatgabhane] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@rushatgabhane] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@rushatgabhane] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@rushatgabhane] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@rushatgabhane] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@miljakljajic] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[miljakljajic]

Sent offer to @nkdengineer

Payment summary for @rushatgabhane -

@rushatgabhane is owed 250 USD for their work on this issue

[rushatgabhane]

1. The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR: [HOLD] Implement Uneven Splits #40386

2. The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment: https://github.com/Expensify/App/pull/40386/files#r1646619910

3. A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion: N.A.

4. Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug. - No. Really minor and insignificant bug

5. If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again - N.A.

[melvin-bot]

Payment Summary

Upwork Job

• Reviewer: @rushatgabhane owed $250 via NewDot
• ROLE: @nkdengineer paid $(AMOUNT) via Upwork (LINK)

BugZero Checklist (@miljakljajic)

• I have verified the correct assignees and roles are listed above and updated the neccesary manual offers
• I have verified that there are no duplicate or incorrect contracts on Upwork for this job (https://www.upwork.com/ab/applicants/1787821258983333888/hired)
• I have paid out the Upwork contracts or cancelled the ones that are incorrect
• I have verified the payment summary above is correct

[miljakljajic]

@nkdengineer please accept the offer so I can pay you and close this out

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.85-7 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• fix: App allows splitting when the sum of splits is not equal to total #43342

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-28. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @rushatgabhane requires payment through NewDot Manual Requests
• @nkdengineer requires payment (Needs manual offer from BZ)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR fixing this issue has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@rushatgabhane] The PR that introduced the bug has been identified. Link to the PR:
• [@rushatgabhane] The offending PR has been commented on, pointing out the bug it caused and why, so the author and reviewers can learn from the mistake. Link to comment:
• [@rushatgabhane] A discussion in #expensify-bugs has been started about whether any other steps should be taken (e.g. updating the PR review checklist) in order to catch this type of bug sooner. Link to discussion:
• [@rushatgabhane] Determine if we should create a regression test for this bug.
• [@rushatgabhane] If we decide to create a regression test for the bug, please propose the regression test steps to ensure the same bug will not reach production again.
• [@miljakljajic] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon:

[JmillsExpensify]

BZ checklist already completed above. $250 approved for @rushatgabhane

[miljakljajic]

@nkdengineer paid - closing out